| | |
|
DavidGarfinkelSecondPaper 7 - 23 Apr 2010 - Main.DavidGarfinkel
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | The next sentence gets to where I think this needs to go: the curve. I think there are many points to be made about how the curve and how it ties into Veblen. To me, it is a deceiving cover reflecting not how hard productive one is or how good of an attorney that person will be, but rather reflects superficial qualities—if it reflects anything at all! And, the curve (the hierarchy) creates waste because it tells you nothing about (a) how well people are being taught or (b) how well people are learning. Just some thoughts.
| |
>
> | Concerning the curve, I agree with your statements. The reason I avoided going into a deeper discussion about the curve was because I felt that it has been discussed by others, and did want to take a broader look at what occurs in law school. | | | Columbia Law School, for instance, creates elements of competition and hierarchy through its grading curve and doling out of titles, like Stone and Kent. But the hierarchical elements of law school run even deeper. Students enter the law school with a concept of hierarchy due to the fact that their acceptance was based significantly on how they did in comparison to everyone else on a single test.
I'm going to repeat my objection here, only because most enter college with a test score. Almost all American post-secondary instutions have test scores. My high school program had test scores! Law school may place an unhealthy reliance on a test score. I just don't think this is a strong point.
| |
>
> | True. Before college, I had gone to private school my whole life, so I had to take standardized tests to get into middle and high school, in addition to the SAT for college. For me, though difficult to explain, the LSAT and the process felt different. Part of this may have to do with context, as we are older and focusing in on our career path. Part of it may also have to do with the much stronger reliance Law Schools place on the LSAT. | | | And following the beginning of classes, students are asked to apply to a variety of programs and positions with limited seats, such as moot courts, fellowships, and board positions. The first day the school creates an atmosphere that stratifies students, and to ensure a sense of security in position, like the members of the leisure class Veblen discusses, students who cannot demonstrate material wealth, for financial and cultural reasons, must look for other “commodities” to serve as a demonstration of their position in the micro-society of law school. First semester grades end up become the go-to commodity and the lengths students go to try get top marks is similar to the efforts investment people put into attaining material objects. In some sense, there is a similar fetishization of grades that one sees in certain material objects. And this process is continually renewed through new arenas, from summer job searches to clinic/journal applications—especially law review.
Pawning Our License as the beginning of a new conspicuous consumption | | | My edits are interspersed throughout. I see no need to post the original as it can be accesses through the history function.
In my opinion, there are three directions you can go with this. The first is preserving the general structure and just fine tuning the weak points of the argument (the realistic option with exams approaching). Beyond that, there are two possibilities: focus a little on the curve. I think that there are powerful implications of a clinging to normalized bell curve that speaks powerfully to your point. I didn't add them, because I think that goes beyond the job of an editor. But one does not have to think long about some of the sinister implications of a forced curve: it can mask bad teaching, it differentiates on meaningless criteria, and it does not tell you anything about the disparity of student quality. I think some of these ideas can be rolled into your paper and some can't. Third, it is just my opinion that this paper could be better off losing Veblen and instead focusing more on hierarchical / class structures. My favorite part of the paper deals with how you talk about going from one hierarchy to the next. It sort of conjured up an image in my mind where in high school we all were on a large totem pole and then the top 1/3 was shaved off the top and shuffled up on another totem pole whereby the top 1/3...etc. I see many directions you can take this, all of which look promising. I think it is just a question of time and how well I am interpreting your feelings on the issue. | |
>
> | To address some general issues. I realize more explicitly now that I made some over generalizations, in terms of comparisons to other educational institutions and students in general. Would probably take out statements making reference to other graduate schools. But feel like my points about hierarchy and competition are much stronger in law school than in previous settings, possibly b/c of our adult status and the career oriented aspect for most students (i.e. most students have solely been students before coming). And in terms of EIP, there are exceptions. I did not mean to cover every students. But feel like it addresses a very strong force in how most students think in some respect. Though may have taken the metaphor too far. My hope was to try to apply the idea and process of conspicuous consumption to law school in general. Issues concerning the curve, while relevant, felt too narrow and also preempted by others, so was hoping for some sense of originality in my paper. Questionable if it worked. Since as editors we have to actually rewrite the papers we are assigned, the direction I am hoping for is to demonstrate the extremely strong sense of hierarchy and competition that colors much of the law school process and translates into early career choices. Good luck with the edit. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |